Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After declining to take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital for blood testing. The officer never attempted to secure a search warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the blood test, but the officer directed a lab technician to take a sample. McNeelys BAC tested well above the legal limit, and he was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). He moved to suppress the blood test result, arguing that taking his blood without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court agreed, concluding that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply because, apart from the fact that McNeelys blood alcohol was dissipating, no circumstances suggested that the officer faced an emergency. The State Supreme Court affirmed, relying onSchmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, in which this Court upheld a DWI suspects warrantless blood test where the officer might reasonably have believed that he was confronted with an emergency, in which the delay necessary to obtain a warrant, under the circumstances, threatened the destruction of evidence, id., at 770. This case, the state court found, involved a routine DWI investigation where no factors other than the natural dissipation of blood alcohol suggested that there was an emergency, and, thus, the nonconsensual warrantless test violated McNeelys right to be free from unreasonable searches of his person.

Held:The judgment is affirmed. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and IV, concluding that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant. (a)The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception, see, e.g.,United States v. Robinson,414 U.S. 218, applies here, where the search involved a compelled physical intrusion beneath McNeelys skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. One recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S.. This Court looks to the totality of circumstances in determining whether an exigency exits. SeeBrigham City v. Stuart,547 U.S. 398. Applying this approach in Schmerber, the Court found a warrantless blood test reasonable after considering all of the facts and circumstances of that case and carefully basing its holding on those specific facts, including that alcohol levels decline after drinking stops and that testing was delayed while officers transported the injured suspect to the hospital and investigated the accident scene.

Although the information contained in the tip was uncorroborated, by the time the officers knocked at the door of defendants apartment, subsequent events, created by defendants own actions, established probable cause and exigent circumstances which justified an entry into defendants apartment. Thus, the warrantless seizure of the marijuana cigarette and all the CDS found in defendants apartment was proper and permissible under the New Jersey and federal constitutions. Although the underlying offense here, possession of marijuana, is a disorderly persons offense, the circumstances indicate that the officers warrantless entry into defendants home was objectively reasonable. A limited entry was necessary to arrest defendant for the disorderly persons offense and to retrieve the marijuana cigarette. After entering, the officers saw in the living room CDS and other contraband in plain view. These items were subject to seizure as well.

3. New Laws: Cell Phone and Prenuptial Agreements.

P.L.2013, c.70. Increases fine and Imposes License Suspension

for Talking or Texting on Hand-held Device While Driving.

Approved6/27/2013

Senate Bill No. 69 (2R) imposes increased fines for first, second and subsequent offenses of talking on a hand-held wireless telephone or texting a message with a hand-held wireless electronic communication device while driving. Specifically, this bill increases the fines to $200 to $400 for a first offense, $400 to $600 for a second offense, and $600 to $800 for third or subsequent offenses.

This floor amendment provides that only premarital and pre-civil union agreements entered into on or after the effective date of the bill (immediately upon enactment), or entered into before effective date but voluntarily revised by the parties on or after that effective date would be subject to its provisions.

Thus, premarital and pre-civil union agreements entered into before the effective date would remain subject to the current law, which permits agreements to be set aside if deemed,at the time of enforcement, to be unconscionable.SeeR.S.37:2-32, subsection c. and R.S.37:2-38, subsection b.

Only new agreements, or older agreements with new revisions, would be subject to the underlying bills new standard of unconscionability: such agreements could not be deemed unconscionable unless determined to be unconscionablewhen executedbecause the party seeking to set aside the agreement: (1) was not provided full and fair disclosure of the earnings, property, and financial obligations of the other party; (2) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; (3) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party; or (4) did not consult with independent legal counsel and did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, the opportunity to consult with independent legal counsel.

Why? Because when attorneys update practice information, it puts them on Superlawyers system - their research department will review your background, experience and credentials as part of their selection process.

5.PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE

2053 Woodbridge Ave.

Edison, NJ 08817

Excellent space for an Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountant, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals as a 2nd location or location to meet clients in Edison.

The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building.

2 rooms office

office room # 6 approx 12.4 x 9.4

and front room appr 8 x 9 -office room # 5

plus use of reception room16.6 x 7.2

and use of storage area in basement

$600 per month [was $700]

Call 732-572-0500

Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Personal Injury, Elder Law, and Criminal Law.

FOR
POTENTIAL CLIENTS TO CONTACT US DURING NON-BUSINESS HOURS,
PLEASE FILL OUT THE FORM.

Name:

Cell
Phone:

E-Mail
Address

If
You Do Not Include a Complete E-Mail Address, Network will not Forward
Your Contact Form to the Law Office.

Details
of the Case

Agree

By typing " agree" into
the box you are confirming that you wish to send your information
to the Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen

Meet with an experienced
Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office"
consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Since 1985, KENNETH VERCAMMEN has worked as a personal injury attorney,
working for injury victims and their families. By taking a hard-hitting,
aggressive approach toward the insurance companies, KENNETH VERCAMMEN
and our co-counsel have consistently obtained outstanding results for
many injured clients over the years I am proud to have worked on cases
in various capacities, small and large. While obviously prior results
cannot guarantee the outcome of future cases, I can guarantee that you
case will receive the same degree of dedication and hard work that went
into each of these prior cases.

In direct contrast to the hard-hitting approach we take toward the insurance
companies is the soft approach we take toward our clients.
I am proud of my compassionate staff as I am of the outstanding financial
results they have achieved. For many years, I have watched them treat
our clients with patience, dignity and respect. I would have it no other
way.

Many years ago, I attended a seminar sponsored by the American Bar Association
on Law Practice Management. This was to help insure that each of our clients
is always treated like a person -- not a file! We recognize that you are
innocent victims and that you have placed your trust in us. Please understand
that we understand what you are going through. Feel comforted that we
are here to help you.

If you retain KENNETH VERCAMMEN to represent you, we will give you the
same advice we give each of our clients -- concentrate on your life, you
family and your health. We will take care of everything else. Leave all
of the work and worry about your legal rights to us. Trust us. Believe
in us. Have faith in us as your attorneys. Understand that we will always
to do what we believe is best for you and your case. Helping you is our
job. In fact, it is our only job -- guiding injury victims like you through
one of the most difficult times of your lives, with care and concern --
while fighting aggressively to the limits of the law to obtain compensation
and justice for each of you!

Print our Personal Injury Questionnaire on our Website, Fill it out and
Fax back, so we can determine if we can help you obtain an injury settlement.
We would welcome an opportunity to prove to you what we have proven to
thousands of injured clients -- that you can feel comfortable and secure
in the fact that KENNETH VERCAMMEN - Trial Attorney We Fight To Win.

When you have been injured in an accident or collision, you are worried
about who is going to pay your medical bills, lost wages, and other damages.
The last thing you want is to be taken advantage of by an insurance company.
If you dont protect your rights, you may not be able to make a
claim.

Insurance companies have attorneys and adjusters whose goal is to pay
you as little as they can. You need a New Jersey personal injury lawyer
to fight for you. I am dedicated to helping your recover as much money
as possible under the law.

You need an attorney who will work hard to protect your rights, maximize
your insurance settlement and minimize the hassles of dealing with the
insurance companies. You need an experienced and aggressive New Jersey
trial lawyer with PROVEN RESULTS who will fight for you. Having an experienced
personal injury lawyer can make the difference between getting what you
deserve and getting nothing.

Without the threat of a lawyer who is willing to go to trial and seek
a big jury verdict, why would an insurance company pay you what your claim
is really worth? Lawsuits can be expensive, and many people do not have
the money to pursue their claim. In every case, I advance all costs associated
with pursuing your case and I do not ask you for a penny until we recover
from the other side.

I am an experienced aggressive trial lawyer and a 3rd degree Black Belt.
I am not afraid to take your case to trial if that is what it takes to
maximize the amount of money your recover for your personal injury. I
offer one-on-one service, and I will not hand your case off to an inexperienced
lawyer or a paralegal.

Reduce the stress of making a claim.

Personal injury accidents can turn your life upside down. Making a personal
injury claim can be difficult and time consuming. Once I take your case,
you can stop worrying about dealing with the insurance companies and focus
on recovering from your injuries. I take care of all of the paperwork,
phone calls, and negotiations, so you can get on with your life.

p.s. For those clients who are afraid or reluctant to go to Court, KENNETH
VERCAMMEN also offers a special -- For Settlement Only --
program. This means that if we are unable to settle with the insurance
company, we will not go any further -- unless you want us to. You have
my personal assurance that there will be absolutely no pressure and no
obligation.

We handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis.

This means:
YOU DONT OWE ME A LEGAL FEE UNLESS I RECOVER MONEY FOR YOU.

Call our office to schedule a "confidential" appointment 732-572-0500

Kenneth A. Vercammen is the Managing Attorney at Kenneth Vercammen &
Associates in Edison, NJ. He is a New Jersey trial attorney has devoted
a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and
trial of litigated matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey
each week on personal injury matters, Criminal /Municipal Court trials,
and contested Probate hearings.

Mr. Vercammen has published over 125 legal articles in national and New
Jersey publications on criminal, elder law, probate and litigation topics.
He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American
Bar Association, NJ ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex
County Bar Association. His articles have been published in noted publications
included New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine,
and New Jersey Lawyer. He is the Editor in Chief of the American Bar Association
Tort and Insurance Committee Newsletter.

Admitted In NJ, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court.

Contact the Law Office
of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over
the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential
"in office" consultation.

.

Disclaimer
This web site is purely a
public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not
promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is
not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information
at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel.
The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules
of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated
with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated.
The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential
interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed
as an endorsement.